He had often wondered whether it might not be a good idea to work out a
written defence and hand it in to the court. It would contain a short
description of his life and explain why he had acted the way he had at
each event that was in any way important, whether he now considered he
had acted well or ill, and his reasons for each. There was no doubt of
the advantages a written defence of this sort would have over relying
on the lawyer, who was anyway not without his shortcomings. K. had no
idea what actions the lawyer was taking; it was certainly not a lot, it
was more than a month since the lawyer had summoned him, and none of
the previous discussions had given K. the impression that this man would
be able to do much for him. Most importantly, he had asked him hardly
any questions. And there were so many questions here to be asked.
Asking questions was the most important thing. K. had the feeling that
he would be able to ask all the questions needed here himself. The
lawyer, in contrast, did not ask questions but did all the talking
himself or sat silently facing him, leant forward slightly over the
desk, probably because he was hard of hearing, pulled on a strand of
hair in the middle of his beard and looked down at the carpet, perhaps
at the very spot where K. had lain with Leni. Now and then he would give
K. some vague warning of the sort you give to children. His speeches
were as pointless as they were boring, and K. decided that when the
final bill came he would pay not a penny for them. Once the lawyer
thought he had humiliated K. sufficiently, he usually started something
that would raise his spirits again. He had already, he would then say,
won many such cases, partly or in whole, cases which may not really have
been as difficult as this one but which, on the face of it, had even
less hope of success. He had a list of these cases here in the
drawer--here he would tap on one or other of the drawers in his
desk--but could, unfortunately, not show them to K. as they dealt with
official secrets. Nonetheless, the great experience he had acquired
through all these cases would, of course, be of benefit to K. He had, of
course, begun work straight away and was nearly ready to submit the
first documents. They would be very important because the first
impression made by the defence will often determine the whole course of
the proceedings. Unfortunately, though, he would still have to make it
clear to K. that the first documents submitted are sometimes not even
read by the court. They simply put them with the other documents and
point out that, for the time being, questioning and observing the
accused are much more important than anything written. If the applicant
becomes insistent, then they add that before they come to any decision,
as soon as all the material has been brought together, with due regard,
of course, to all the documents, then these first documents to have been
submitted will also be checked over. But unfortunately, even this is not
usually true, the first documents submitted are usually mislaid or lost
completely, and even if they do keep them right to the end they are
hardly read, although the lawyer only knew about this from rumour. This
is all very regrettable, but not entirely without its justifications.
But K. should not forget that the trial would not be public, if the
court deems it necessary it can be made public but there is no law that
says it has to be. As a result, the accused and his defence don't have
access even to the court records, and especially not to the indictment,
and that means we generally don't know--or at least not precisely--what
the first documents need to be about, which means that if they do
contain anything of relevance to the case it's only by a lucky
coincidence. If anything about the individual charges and the reasons
for them comes out clearly or can be guessed at while the accused is
being questioned, then it's possible to work out and submit documents
that really direct the issue and present proof, but not before.
Conditions like this, of course, place the defence in a very
unfavourable and difficult position. But that is what they intend. In
fact, defence is not really allowed under the law, it's only tolerated,
and there is even some dispute about whether the relevant parts of the
law imply even that. So strictly speaking, there is no such thing as a
counsel acknowledged by the court, and anyone who comes before this
court as counsel is basically no more than a barrack room lawyer. The
effect of all this, of course, is to remove the dignity of the whole
procedure, the next time K. is in the court offices he might like to
have a look in at the lawyers' room, just so that he's seen it. He might
well be quite shocked by the people he sees assembled there. The room
they've been allocated, with its narrow space and low ceiling, will be
enough to show what contempt the court has for these people. The only
light in the room comes through a little window that is so high up that,
if you want to look out of it, you first have to get one of your
colleagues to support you on his back, and even then the smoke from the
chimney just in front of it will go up your nose and make your face
black. In the floor of this room--to give yet another example of the
conditions there--there is a hole that's been there for more than a
year, it's not so big that a man could fall through, but it is big
enough for your foot to disappear through it. The lawyers' room is on
the second floor of the attic; if your foot does go through it will hang
down into the first floor of the attic underneath it, and right in the
corridor where the litigants are waiting. It's no exaggeration when
lawyers say that conditions like that are a disgrace. Complaints to the
management don't have the slightest effect, but the lawyers are strictly
forbidden to alter anything in the room at their own expense. But even
treating the lawyers in this way has its reasons. They want, as far as
possible, to prevent any kind of defence, everything should be made the
responsibility of the accused. Not a bad point of view, basically, but
nothing could be more mistaken than to think from that that lawyers are
not necessary for the accused in this court. On the contrary, there is
no court where they are less needed than here. This is because
proceedings are generally kept secret not only from the public but also
from the accused. Only as far as that is possible, of course, but it is
possible to a very large extent. And the accused doesn't get to see the
court records either, and it's very difficult to infer what's in the
court records from what's been said during questioning based on them,
especially for the accused who is in a difficult situation and is faced
with every possible worry to distract him. This is when the defence
begins. Counsel for the defence are not normally allowed to be present
while the accused is being questioned, so afterwards, and if possible
still at the door of the interview room, he has to learn what he can
about it from him and extract whatever he can that might be of use, even
though what the accused has to report is often very confused. But that
is not the most important thing, as there's really not a lot that can be
learned in this way, although in this, as with anything else, a
competent man will learn more than another. Nonetheless, the most
important thing is the lawyer's personal connections, that's where the
real value of taking counsel lies. Now K. will most likely have already
learned from his own experience that, among its very lowest orders, the
court organisation does have its imperfections, the court is strictly
closed to the public, but staff who forget their duty or who take bribes
do, to some extent, show where the gaps are. This is where most lawyers
will push their way in, this is where bribes are paid and information
extracted, there have even, in earlier times at least, been incidents
where documents have been stolen. There's no denying that some
surprisingly favourable results have been attained for the accused in
this way, for a limited time, and these petty advocates then strut to
and fro on the basis of them and attract new clients, but for the
further course of the proceedings it signifies either nothing or nothing
good. The only things of real value are honest personal contacts,
contacts with higher officials, albeit higher officials of the lower
grades, you understand. That is the only way the progress of the trial
can be influenced, hardly noticeable at first, it's true, but from then
on it becomes more and more visible. There are, of course, not many
lawyers who can do this, and K. has made a very good choice in this
matter. There were probably no more than one or two who had as many
contacts as Dr. Huld, but they don't bother with the company of the
lawyers' room and have nothing to do with it. This means they have all
the less contact with the court officials. It is not at all necessary
for Dr. Huld to go to the court, wait in the ante-rooms for the
examining judges to turn up, if they turn up, and try to achieve
something which, according to the judges' mood is usually more apparent
than real and most often not even that. No, K. has seen for himself that
the court officials, including some who are quite high up, come forward
without being asked, are glad to give information which is fully open or
at least easy to understand, they discuss the next stages in the
proceedings, in fact in some cases they can be won over and are quite
willing to adopt the other person's point of view. However, when this
happens, you should never trust them too far, as however firmly they may
have declared this new point of view in favour of the defendant they
might well go straight back to their offices and write a report for the
court that says just the opposite, and might well be even harder on the
defendant than the original view, the one they insist they've been fully
dissuaded from. And, of course, there's no way of defending yourself
from this, something said in private is indeed in private and cannot
then be used in public, it's not something that makes it easy for the
defence to keep those gentlemen's favour. On the other hand, it's also
true that the gentlemen don't become involved with the defence--which
will of course be done with great expertise--just for philanthropic
reasons or in order to be friendly, in some respects it would be truer
to say that they, too, have it allocated to them. This is where the
disadvantages of a court structure that, right from the start,
stipulates that all proceedings take place in private, come into force.
In normal, mediocre trials its officials have contact with the public,
and they're very well equipped for it, but here they don't; normal
trials run their course all by themselves, almost, and just need a nudge
here and there; but when they're faced with cases that are especially
difficult they're as lost as they often are with ones that are very
simple; they're forced to spend all their time, day and night, with
their laws, and so they don't have the right feel for human
relationships, and that's a serious shortcoming in cases like this.
That's when they come for advice to the lawyer, with a servant behind
them carrying the documents which normally are kept so secret. You could
have seen many gentlemen at this window, gentlemen of whom you would
least expect it, staring out this window in despair on the street below
while the lawyer is at his desk studying the documents so that he can
give them good advice. And at times like that it's also possible to see
how exceptionally seriously these gentlemen take their professions and
how they are thrown into great confusion by difficulties which it's just
not in their natures to overcome. But they're not in an easy position,
to regard their positions as easy would be to do them an injustice. The
different ranks and hierarchies of the court are endless, and even
someone who knows his way around them cannot always tell what's going to
happen. But even for the junior officials, the proceedings in the
courtrooms are usually kept secret, so they are hardly able to see how
the cases they work with proceed, court affairs appear in their range of
vision often without their knowing where they come from and they move on
further without their learning where they go. So civil servants like
this are not able to learn the things you can learn from studying the
successive stages that individual trials go through, the final verdict
or the reasons for it. They're only allowed to deal with that part of
the trial which the law allocates them, and they usually know less about
the results of their work after it's left them than the defence does,
even though the defence will usually stay in contact with the accused
until the trial is nearly at its end, so that the court officials can
learn many useful things from the defence. Bearing all this in mind,
does it still surprise K. that the officials are irritated and often
express themselves about the litigants in unflattering ways--which is an
experience shared by everyone. All the officials are irritated, even
when they appear calm. This causes many difficulties for the junior
advocates, of course. There is a story, for instance, that has very much
the ring of truth about it. It goes like this: One of the older
officials, a good and peaceful man, was dealing with a difficult matter
for the court which had become very confused, especially thanks to the
contributions from the lawyers. He had been studying it for a day and a
night without a break--as these officials are indeed hard working,
no-one works as hard as they do. When it was nearly morning, and he had
been working for twenty-four hours with probably very little result, he
went to the front entrance, waited there in ambush, and every time a
lawyer tried to enter the building he would throw him down the steps.
The lawyers gathered together down in front of the steps and discussed
with each other what they should do; on the one hand they had actually
no right to be allowed into the building so that there was hardly
anything that they could legally do to the official and, as I've already
mentioned, they would have to be careful not to set all the officials
against them. On the other hand, any day not spent in court is a day
lost for them and it was a matter of some importance to force their way
inside. In the end, they agreed that they would try to tire the old man
out. One lawyer after another was sent out to run up the steps and let
himself be thrown down again, offering what resistance he could as long
as it was passive resistance, and his colleagues would catch him at the
bottom of the steps. That went on for about an hour until the old
gentleman, who was already exhausted from working all night, was very
tired and went back to his office. Those who were at the bottom of the
steps could not believe it at first, so they sent somebody out to go and
look behind the door to see if there really was no-one there, and only
then did they all gather together and probably didn't even dare to
complain, as it's far from being the lawyers' job to introduce any
improvements in the court system, or even to want to. Even the most
junior lawyer can understand the relationship there to some extent, but
one significant point is that almost every defendant, even very simple
people, begins to think of suggestions for improving the court as soon
as his proceedings have begun, many of them often even spend time and
energy on the matter that could be spent far better elsewhere. The only
right thing to do is to learn how to deal with the situation as it is.
Even if it were possible to improve any detail of it--which is anyway no
more than superstitious nonsense--the best that they could achieve,
although doing themselves incalculable harm in the process, is that they
will have attracted the special attention of the officials for any case
that comes up in the future, and the officials are always ready to seek
revenge. Never attract attention to yourself! Stay calm, however much it
goes against your character! Try to gain some insight into the size of
the court organism and how, to some extent, it remains in a state of
suspension, and that even if you alter something in one place you'll
draw the ground out from under your feet and might fall, whereas if an
enormous organism like the court is disrupted in any one place it finds
it easy to provide a substitute for itself somewhere else. Everything is
connected with everything else and will continue without any change or
else, which is quite probable, even more closed, more attentive, more
strict, more malevolent. So it's best to leave the work to the lawyers
and not to keep disturbing them. It doesn't do much good to make
accusations, especially if you can't make it clear what they're based on
and their full significance, but it must be said that K. caused a great
deal of harm to his own case by his behaviour towards the office
director, he was a very influential man but now he might as well be
struck off the list of those who might do anything for K. If the trial
is mentioned, even just in passing, it's quite obvious that he's
ignoring it. These officials are in many ways just like children. Often,
something quite harmless--although K.'s behaviour could unfortunately
not be called harmless--will leave them feeling so offended that they
will even stop talking with good friends of theirs, they turn away when
they see them and do everything they can to oppose them. But then, with
no particular reason, surprisingly enough, some little joke that was
only ever attempted because everything seemed so hopeless will make them
laugh and they'll be reconciled. It's both difficult and hard at the
same time to deal with them, and there's hardly any reason for it. It's
sometimes quite astonishing that a single, average life is enough to
encompass so much that it's at all possible ever to have any success in
one's work here. On the other hand, there are also dark moments, such as
everyone has, when you think you've achieved nothing at all, when it
seems that the only trials to come to a good end are those that were
determined to have a good end from the start and would do so without any
help, while all the others are lost despite all the running to and fro,
all the effort, all the little, apparent successes that gave such joy.
Then you no longer feel very sure of anything and, if asked about a
trial that was doing well by its own nature but which was turned for the
worse because you assisted in it, would not even dare deny that. And
even that is a kind of self-confidence, but then it's the only one
that's left. Lawyers are especially vulnerable to fits of depression of
that sort--and they are no more than fits of depression of course--when
a case is suddenly taken out of their hands after they've been
conducting it satisfactorily for some time. That's probably the worst
that can happen to a lawyer. It's not that the accused takes the case
away from him, that hardly ever happens, once a defendant has taken on
a certain lawyer he has to stay with him whatever happens. How could he
ever carry on by himself after he's taken on help from a lawyer? No,
that just doesn't happen, but what does sometimes happen is that the
trial takes on a course where the lawyer may not go along with it.
Client and trial are both simply taken away from the lawyer; and then
even contact with the court officials won't help, however good they are,
as they don't know anything themselves. The trial will have entered a
stage where no more help can be given, where it's being processed in
courts to which no-one has any access, where the defendant cannot even
be contacted by his lawyer. You come home one day and find all the
documents you've submitted, which you've worked hard to create and which
you had the best hopes for, lying on the desk, they've been sent back as
they can't be carried through to the next stage in the trial, they're
just worthless scraps of paper. It doesn't mean that the case has been
lost, not at all, or at least there is no decisive reason for supposing
so, it's just that you don't know anything more about the case and won't
be told anything of what's happening. Well, cases like that are the
exceptions, I'm glad to say, and even if K.'s trial is one of them, it's
still, for the time being, a long way off. But there was still plenty of
opportunity for lawyers to get to work, and K. could be sure they would
be made use of. As he had said, the time for submitting documents was
still in the future and there was no rush to prepare them, it was much
more important to start the initial discussions with the appropriate
officials, and they had already taken place. With varying degrees of
success, it must be said. It was much better not to give away any
details before their time, as in that way K. could only be influenced
unfavourably and his hopes might be raised or he might be made too
anxious, better just to say that some individuals have spoken very
favourably and shown themselves very willing to help, although others
have spoken less favourably, but even they have not in any way refused
to help. So all in all, the results are very encouraging, only you
should certainly not draw any particular conclusions as all preliminary
proceedings begin in the same way and it was only the way they developed
further that would show what the value of these preliminary proceedings
has been. Anyway, nothing has been lost yet, and if we can succeed in
getting the office director, despite everything, on our side--and
several actions have been undertaken to this end--then everything is a
clean wound, as a surgeon would say, and we can wait for the results
with some comfort.
When he started talking on in this way the lawyer was quite tireless.
He went through it all again every time K. went to see him. There was
always some progress, but he could never be told what sort of progress
it was. The first set of documents to be submitted were being worked on
but still not ready, which usually turned out to be a great advantage
the next time K. went to see him as the earlier occasion would have
been a very bad time to put them in, which they could not then have
known. If K., stupefied from all this talking, ever pointed out that
even considering all these difficulties progress was very slow, the
lawyer would object that progress was not slow at all, but that they
might have progressed far further if K. had come to him at the right
time. But he had come to him late and that lateness would bring still
further difficulties, and not only where time was concerned. The only
welcome interruption during these visits was always when Leni contrived
to bring the lawyer his tea while K. was there. Then she would stand
behind K.--pretending to watch the lawyer as he bent greedily over his
cup, poured the tea in and drank--and secretly let K. hold her hand.
There was always complete silence. The lawyer drank. K. squeezed Leni's
hand and Leni would sometimes dare to gently stroke K.'s hair. "Still
here, are you?" the lawyer would ask when he was ready. "I wanted to
take the dishes away," said Leni, they would give each other's hands a
final squeeze, the lawyer would wipe his mouth and then start talking at
K. again with renewed energy.
Was the lawyer trying to comfort K. or to confuse him? K. could not
tell, but it seemed clear to him that his defence was not in good
hands. Maybe everything the lawyer said was quite right, even though he
obviously wanted to make himself as conspicuous as possible and
probably had never even taken on a case as important as he said K.'s
was. But it was still suspicious how he continually mentioned his
personal contacts with the civil servants. Were they to be exploited
solely for K.'s benefit. The lawyer never forgot to mention that they
were dealing only with junior officials, which meant officials who were
dependent on others, and the direction taken in each trial could be
important for their own furtherment. Could it be that they were making
use of the lawyer to turn trials in a certain direction, which would,
of course, always be at the cost of the defendant. It certainly did not
mean that they would do that in every trial, that was not likely at all,
and there were probably also trials where they gave the lawyer
advantages and all the room he needed to turn it in the direction he
wanted, as it would also be to their advantage to keep his reputation
intact. If that really was their relationship, how would they direct
K.'s trial which, as the lawyer had explained, was especially difficult
and therefore important enough to attract great attention from the very
first time it came to court? There could not be much doubt about what
they would do. The first signs of it could already be seen in the fact
that the first documents still had not been submitted even though the
trial had already lasted several months, and that, according to the
lawyer, everything was still in its initial stages, which was very
effective, of course, in making the defendant passive and keeping him
helpless. Then he could be suddenly surprised with the verdict, or at
least with a notification that the hearing had not decided in his favour
and the matter would be passed on to a higher office.
It was essential that K. take a hand in it himself. On winter's
mornings such as this, when he was very tired and everything dragged
itself lethargically through his head, this belief of his seemed
irrefutable. He no longer felt the contempt for the trial that he had
had earlier. If he had been alone in the world it would have been easy
for him to ignore it, although it was also certain that, in that case,
the trial would never have arisen in the first place. But now, his uncle
had already dragged him to see the lawyer, he had to take account of his
family; his job was no longer totally separate from the progress of the
trial, he himself had carelessly--with a certain, inexplicable
complacency--mentioned it to acquaintances and others had learned about
it in ways he did not know, his relationship with Miss Bürstner seemed
to be in trouble because of it. In short, he no longer had any choice
whether he would accept the trial or turn it down, he was in the middle
of it and had to defend himself. If he was tired, then that was bad.